Sepharo wrote on Oct 21, 2013, 19:27:You might need to brush up on what an arbitration court is before we have this conversation.

Two people go to a respected member of their community whom they both trust to settle a dispute. WE'RE DOOMED.

It's not needed in the first place. If they live in Brittan theres this little thing called British law.

Why go to that expense? Do you think this is somehow unique to Muslims? Or for that matter, do you think it's ubiquitous for Muslims? Do you think it's obligatory for Muslims?

If they don't like the decision then they can take it to court unless they signed a legal document before the arbitration to make it binding. In either case, it's British law.

Edit: You're far from the only person to confuse the names here. There is an excellent video here which explains even more than I knew. Anyone living in Northern Ireland - in the UK but not Britain - knows more about this than most.

Since you missed it the first time. This is what's going on in the streets of London. To think your leaders could have stopped it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dN6CHtGGo4ghttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYFzrEIzoHE

Since you missed it the first time:

Extreme elements including anyone who treats others as sub human are not acceptable. However, much like not all liberals are alike, not all Muslims are alike.

Those incidents are messed up but they're not representative of the UK. I wouldn't entirely trust RT anyway, they're funded by a government who have a bit of a history with Islamic countries and are still to this day very much showing bigotry.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

RollinThundr wrote on Oct 21, 2013, 09:44:I've said before multiple times, slimming down the military and cutting wasteful spending across ALL facets of government is the right thing to do. And it's something that HAS TO HAPPEN. It's not my fault you lefties pick and choose from what people actually say.

If the founding father's never intended us to have a standing army what do you think the term well regulated militia means? The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States....Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America" - (Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.)

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)

I mean shit, how much more clear does it need to be?

Obviously not clear to you. You're quoting justification for militia and the right to bear arms. That's different from having a standing army:

A militia generally refers to an army or other fighting force that is composed of non-professional fighters; citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular soldiers.

1. See the difference? A militia is not a standing army.2. No one said anything about restricting the right to keep and bear arms. You are defending a straw man.3. As long as we're quoting James Madison:

A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.

And what do we have now? An overgrown Executive branch. Thank you Eric Holder and Barack Obama.

RollinThundr wrote on Oct 21, 2013, 09:44:I've said before multiple times, slimming down the military and cutting wasteful spending across ALL facets of government is the right thing to do. And it's something that HAS TO HAPPEN. It's not my fault you lefties pick and choose from what people actually say.

If the founding father's never intended us to have a standing army what do you think the term well regulated militia means? The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States....Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America" - (Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.)

"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244)

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975)..)

I mean shit, how much more clear does it need to be?

Obviously not clear to you. You're quoting justification for militia and the right to bear arms. That's different from having a standing army:

A militia generally refers to an army or other fighting force that is composed of non-professional fighters; citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular soldiers.

1. See the difference? A militia is not a standing army.2. No one said anything about restricting the right to keep and bear arms. You are defending a straw man.3. As long as we're quoting James Madison:

A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.

Sepharo wrote on Oct 21, 2013, 19:27:You might need to brush up on what an arbitration court is before we have this conversation.

Two people go to a respected member of their community whom they both trust to settle a dispute. WE'RE DOOMED.

It's not needed in the first place. If they live in Brittan theres this little thing called British law.

Why go to that expense? Do you think this is somehow unique to Muslims? Or for that matter, do you think it's ubiquitous for Muslims? Do you think it's obligatory for Muslims?

If they don't like the decision then they can take it to court unless they signed a legal document before the arbitration to make it binding. In either case, it's British law.

Edit: You're far from the only person to confuse the names here. There is an excellent video here which explains even more than I knew. Anyone living in Northern Ireland - in the UK but not Britain - knows more about this than most.

Since you missed it the first time. This is what's going on in the streets of London. To think your leaders could have stopped it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dN6CHtGGo4ghttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYFzrEIzoHE

Sepharo wrote on Oct 21, 2013, 19:27:You might need to brush up on what an arbitration court is before we have this conversation.

Two people go to a respected member of their community whom they both trust to settle a dispute. WE'RE DOOMED.

It's not needed in the first place. If they live in Brittan theres this little thing called British law.

Why go to that expense? Do you think this is somehow unique to Muslims? Or for that matter, do you think it's ubiquitous for Muslims? Do you think it's obligatory for Muslims?

If they don't like the decision then they can take it to court unless they signed a legal document before the arbitration to make it binding. In either case, it's British law.

Edit: You're far from the only person to confuse the names here. There is an excellent video here which explains even more than I knew. Anyone living in Northern Ireland - in the UK but not Britain - knows more about this than most.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

Stop writing "Brittan". I was hoping it was just a slip earlier but it's clear that you just don't know any better. It's "Britain" and that's not what you call that country anyway, it's the United Kingdom.

Sepharo wrote on Oct 21, 2013, 19:27:You might need to brush up on what an arbitration court is before we have this conversation.

Two people go to a respected member of their community whom they both trust to settle a dispute. WE'RE DOOMED.

Still leaving out a key portion here... Both parties have to agree to arbitration. Also nothing the arbitration court decides can supersede or interfere with the actual law/statutes/consitution whatever.

Sepharo wrote on Oct 21, 2013, 18:16:From what I've read it sounds like there are arbitration courts that handle civil matters. They still need to be in line with British law. Jewish communities have had arbitration courts like this in England for over 100 years and yet haven't overridden British law yet.

Nobody here in the U.S. is worked up about Judge Judy and Judge Mathis running arbitration courts. Why should I care if Judge Hakeem runs his own arbitration court with a sharia grounding.

Right Seph, and there are more extreme elements pushing for outright Shira. Incidentally read some of the horror stories about those arbitration courts. Women still tend to be treated like sub human.

They can push all they want it's not going to happen. And worrying about it happening is crazy.

I will concede that women are not treated equally. They're not treated equally in many religions and societies. The nice thing about the U.K. and United-States and most "western" countries is that all people are afforded rights by the state including women. They are not the property of their husbands. They are free to leave their husbands, to divorce them, and if their religion or culture does anything criminal or anything that abridges their rights the state should intervene and the perpetrators will find themselves in real criminal court. I can't say I find much sympathy for people "forced" to wear hijab or follow sharia law in the U.S. or U.K. ... They're not forced, they do so to appease their religion, a religion they can freely leave.

Right and then they go to one of those arbitration courts and Brit law is ignored. If you immigrate to a country, respect their laws and live by them. Don't try to subject your culture on the host country.

Sepharo wrote on Oct 21, 2013, 18:16:From what I've read it sounds like there are arbitration courts that handle civil matters. They still need to be in line with British law. Jewish communities have had arbitration courts like this in England for over 100 years and yet haven't overridden British law yet.

Nobody here in the U.S. is worked up about Judge Judy and Judge Mathis running arbitration courts. Why should I care if Judge Hakeem runs his own arbitration court with a sharia grounding.

Right Seph, and there are more extreme elements pushing for outright Shira. Incidentally read some of the horror stories about those arbitration courts. Women still tend to be treated like sub human.

They can push all they want it's not going to happen. And worrying about it happening is crazy.

I will concede that women are not treated equally. They're not treated equally in many religions and societies. The nice thing about the U.K. and United-States and most "western" countries is that all people are afforded rights by the state including women. They are not the property of their husbands. They are free to leave their husbands, to divorce them, and if their religion or culture does anything criminal or anything that abridges their rights the state should intervene and the perpetrators will find themselves in real criminal court. I can't say I find much sympathy for people "forced" to wear hijab or follow sharia law in the U.S. or U.K. ... They're not forced, they do so to appease their religion, a religion they can freely leave.

Extreme elements including anyone who treats others as sub human are not acceptable. However, much like not all liberals are alike, not all Muslims are alike. Just like how not all conservatives are alike or how not all Christians or Atheists are alike.

You just can not get your mind around such nuances. Your understanding of other points of view is as simplistic as your understanding of finance. Much easier to plaster a label on lots of people and understand them in a manner that suits you, or the talking head you listen to.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke

Sepharo wrote on Oct 21, 2013, 18:16:From what I've read it sounds like there are arbitration courts that handle civil matters. They still need to be in line with British law. Jewish communities have had arbitration courts like this in England for over 100 years and yet haven't overridden British law yet.

Nobody here in the U.S. is worked up about Judge Judy and Judge Mathis running arbitration courts. Why should I care if Judge Hakeem runs his own arbitration court with a sharia grounding.

Right Seph, and there are more extreme elements pushing for outright Shira. Incidentally read some of the horror stories about those arbitration courts. Women still tend to be treated like sub human.

From what I've read it sounds like there are arbitration courts that handle civil matters. They still need to be in line with British law. Jewish communities have had arbitration courts like this in England for over 100 years and yet haven't overridden British law yet.

Nobody here in the U.S. is worked up about Judge Judy and Judge Mathis running arbitration courts. Why should I care if Judge Hakeem runs his own arbitration court with a sharia grounding.

Quboid wrote on Oct 21, 2013, 18:10:I said you are only worth mocking or ignoring. Talking about Sharia law in the UK is very much in the 'ignore' category. You know effectively nothing about the US never mind abroad. Likewise, you obviously know effectively nothing about economics with claims about 100% fact about a sweeping generalisation and is as far removed from reality as the rest of your comments.

Like I said, keep those fingers in your ears while reality passes you by. Like a good lil lefty trusting the government to watch over you.

I said you are only worth mocking or ignoring. Talking about Sharia law in the UK is very much in the 'ignore' category. You know effectively nothing about the US never mind abroad. Likewise, you obviously know effectively nothing about economics with claims about 100% fact about a sweeping generalisation and is as far removed from reality as the rest of your comments.

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." - Edmund Burke